Greater North Sea

Assessment sheet for Greater North Sea sub-region and for five subdivisions

Greater North Sea

Summary

The physical disturbance pressures from mobile bottom-contacting fishing gears varies spatially in the Greater North Sea region with 91% of the grid cells (I-2), and 62% of the surface area (I-3), in the depth zone 0-200m, being fished on average per year for the period 2013-2018 (Table 1). Fishing is aggregated with 90% of the pressure occurring in 41% of grid cells (I-4).

The PD method shows an average decline in community biomass of 11% relative to carrying capacity across c-squares (I-6). Most c-squares, 82% (I-7), have an impact score less than 20%. The L1 method shows an average impact of 0.66 across c-squares (I-6). Only 21% (I-7) of the c-squares have impact scores less than 20% (I-7).

Maps of spatial distribution of intensity, seafloor sensitivity and economic value and weight of fisheries landings are shown in Figure 1.

All pressure and impact estimates are for areas < 200 meter depth as there is no longevity prediction for deeper regions.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018

Indicators	values
Intensity (I-1)	2.09
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2)	0.91
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3)	0.62
Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4)	0.41
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5)	0.09
Average PD impact	0.11
Average L1 impact	0.66
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2	0.82
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2	0.21

Figure 1

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

The distribution of fishing intensity in the Greater North Sea has a strong spatial variation (Figure 2). Areas of higher intensity occur in the northern North Sea along the edge of the Norwegian Trench and in the eastern English Channel. Areas with lower intensity occur in the western part of the North Sea, and in the deeper parts of the Norwegian trench.

The proportion of area subject to fishing pressure differs between broad-scale habitats and is highest in offshore circalittoral mud (99% of grid cells fished) and circalittoral sand (97% of grid cells fished) (Table 2). Fishing intensity is highest in upper bathyal sediment (average intensity = 9.17 year-1) and offshore circalittoral mud (average intensity = 3.16 year-1).

Total fishing intensity is largely unchanged over time (Figure 3). There is a large peak in intensity in offshore circalittoral mud in 2016, which may be due to erroneous data. Fishing intensity is relatively stable over time in circalittoral sand and offshore circalittoral coarse sediment. The average trawling intensity is more variable over time than the proportion of area fished (Figure 3, compare left and middle panel). This shows that changes in intensity have not affected the spatial distribution of the footprint much.

Fishing pressure is aggregated, both at the regional level as well as at the level of the habitat (Figure 3, right panel). The smallest proportion of habitat with 90% of effort varies between 30-50%. The intensively fished areas represent the ‘core fishing grounds’. These grounds contribute most of the landings and value (Figure 4). Almost 70% of the fishing effort (swept area) and 60% of the landings and value, occur in only 20% of the surface area of the Greater North Sea (Figure 4).

Figure 2

Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.

MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km2	Number of grid cells	Landings 1000 tonnes	Value 10 6 euro	Swept area 1000 km2	Average fishing intensity I 1	Prop of area in fished grid cells I 2	Prop of area fished per year I 3	Smallest prop of area with 90 of fishing effort I 4
Offshore circalittoral sand	242.42	19575	281.35	256.65	435.02	1.79	0.92	0.58	0.36
Offshore circalittoral mud	107.68	9378	146.70	160.24	339.86	3.16	0.99	0.86	0.46
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	76.42	7871	78.68	142.10	213.55	2.79	0.96	0.60	0.23
Circalittoral sand	68.34	7659	144.78	146.80	124.43	1.82	0.97	0.71	0.37
Circalittoral coarse sediment	29.68	4838	26.96	40.59	41.20	1.39	0.84	0.42	0.19
Infralittoral sand	12.69	2719	18.64	32.13	19.59	1.54	0.72	0.52	0.23
Unknown	7.64	2076	3.80	13.05	10.80	1.41	0.54	0.32	0.08
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	7.33	1755	4.39	8.84	15.59	2.13	0.96	0.64	0.24
Circalittoral mud	5.82	1602	17.74	14.14	11.49	1.97	0.91	0.63	0.19
Circalittoral mixed sediment	4.88	1417	3.85	3.73	4.07	0.83	0.84	0.40	0.20
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	3.64	1751	0.54	1.54	3.86	1.06	0.61	0.34	0.12
Infralittoral coarse sediment	3.02	1270	5.57	8.68	3.99	1.32	0.91	0.55	0.13
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	2.34	1705	0.28	0.74	0.91	0.39	0.66	0.19	0.13
Infralittoral mud	1.41	870	0.67	1.94	1.24	0.88	0.40	0.25	0.11
Infralittoral mixed sediment	1.24	628	0.04	0.04	0.05	0.04	0.35	0.03	0.11
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	1.23	1460	0.40	0.84	0.55	0.45	0.60	0.16	0.09
Upper bathyal sediment	0.80	301	3.87	2.42	7.34	9.17	0.92	0.84	0.37
Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef	0.56	407	0.02	0.00	0.29	0.53	0.26	0.17	0.07
Upper bathyal sediment or Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef	0.53	332	0.01	0.00	0.09	0.18	0.22	0.11	0.07

Figure 3

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Core fishing grounds are defined as the c-squares with the 90% highest value of landings in the VMS data. Figure 5 shows the number of years c-squares are within the 90% highest value by métier. If fishing in a métier occurs in the same c-square every year with high value of landings, the rightmost bar in Figure 5 and 6 will be high, meaning that the c-square is within the 90% highest value of landings every year during the period 2013-2018. If a c-square is only within the 90% highest value in one year, it will end up in the bar at the left. Figure 6 shows the percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference fishing ground. Both figures highlight that the fisheries for small pelagic fish (OT_SPF) and the seine (SSC_DMF, SDN_DMF) have the highest variation in space.

Figure 7 illustrates the relationship between area fished in percent and the cumulated value of landings, sorted from the c-squares with highest value fisheries. The curves are generally starting steeply, illustrating the concentration of the fisheries at fishing grounds and the curves are ending horizontally, illustrating the peripheral fisheries going on outside the main fishing grounds.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground

Figure 7

Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Intensity, weight and value of landings are estimated for the grid cells that were fished by one MBCG métier, ignoring cells fished by other métiers (Table 3).

The métier with the highest landings and value per area fished is the beam trawl fishery for whelks, snails and scallop (TBB_MOL) but note that only a very small area has been fished by this métier. The seines (SDN_DMF and SSC_DMF) have the lowest landings and value per area fished. This is followed by otter trawls that target crustaceans (OT_CRU).

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10^6 euro.

X	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MIX	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2)	9.71	142.95	521.69	31.57	12.99	146.33	216.68	55.04	109.38	0.02
Landings (1000 tonnes)	44.87	16.39	482.47	12.99	69.00	8.80	22.26	26.09	64.55	1.80
Value (10^6 euro)	104.18	73.50	245.18	32.01	16.38	17.14	44.35	94.54	235.03	2.47
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2)	4.62	0.11	0.92	0.41	5.31	0.06	0.10	0.47	0.59	87.42
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2)	10.73	0.51	0.47	1.01	1.26	0.12	0.20	1.72	2.15	119.84

Impact

The impact of mobile bottom-contacting fishing from the PD method shows the areas of highest fishing impact along the slopes of the Norwegian trench in the Skagerrak and western Norway and in the eastern English Channel (note the 200m depth limit in this assessment) (Figure 8, left). High impact areas are also seen along the continental coast of the North Sea, in the southern North Sea and Kattegat. High impact from the L1 method covers a much larger area (Figure 8, right) that mimics the map of fishing intensity.

The impact scores are largely constant over time (Figure 9, left panel). Impact varies between habitats (Figure 8 shows the four most extensive habitat types). Of these four habitat types, impact is highest in offshore circalittoral mud and lowest in offshore circalittoral sand. Between 50-80% of each habitat type has a PD impact score <0.2, whereas only 10-40% of each habitat type has an L1 impact score <0.2.

Table 4 shows impact per métier relative to weight and value of landings. In this analysis, the different métiers are assessed for the grid cells that were fished by one MBCG métier, ignoring cells fished by other métiers. As such this estimates the maximum impact compared to the untrawled situation and the impact estimated assuming all other métiers to have impacted the habitat will be less than this. The métier with the highest impact (PD and L1) relative to the value and landings is the otter trawl fishery for crustaceans (OT_CRU). The beam trawl fishery for whelks, snails and scallop (TBB_MOL) has the lowest impact per value and landings but note that only a very small area has been fished by this métier (Table 3).

Métiers differ in their habitat association and impact on each habitat type (Figure 10). Fishing impact on mud is dominated by the otter trawl fishery (OT_CRU and OT_DMF). Beam trawl impact mostly occurs in circalittoral sand. The two impact indicators are typically showing similar qualitative patterns but differ in predicted impact of OT_CRU and OT_DMF. These differences arise as the PD method uses a four times larger depletion rate for OT_CRU compared with OT_DMF due to a larger gear penetration depth, whereas the L1 method assumes that all fauna are sensitive to bottom trawl disturbance (independent of the gear penetration depth).

Figure 8

Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.

Figure 9

Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)

Table 4

Table 4. Overview of impact per metier relative to weight and value of landings estimated for the grid cells fished (SAR >0) with these métiers only. Weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 106 euro.

X	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MIX	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Landings (1000 tonnes)/PD impact	0.33	0.02	0.41	0.08	3.31	0.07	0.08	0.14	0.06	8.28
Value (10^6 euro)/PD impact	0.77	0.07	0.21	0.20	0.80	0.14	0.16	0.49	0.23	11.35
Landings (1000 tonnes)/L1 impact	0.06	0.00	0.03	0.01	0.08	0.00	0.00	0.02	0.01	1.41
Value (10^6 euro)/L1 impact	0.13	0.02	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.08	0.04	1.94

Figure 10

Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.

Manangement scenarios

The figures and tables below show one implementation of multi-purpose habitat management through reductions in effort and spatial closures for the four most extensive MSFD habitat types. They show the changes in average impact (PD, L1), unfished area and fisheries values of landings based on a static assessment of effort removal.

The analysis is based on the progressive removal of 5 to 99% of all MBCG fishing effort, starting from the c-squares with the lowest effort (corrected for the areal extent of the MSFD habitat within each c-square). Blue dots show the current situation and are used as reference. The % of unfished area in the reference is only based on grid cells that are unfished. Average PD and L1 impacts are a weighted average and consider the areal extent of each MSFD habitat type within a grid cell.

Note that the fraction of grid cells above/below a certain impact threshold initially remains the same (not shown) as the removal of effort starts from the c-squares with the lowest effort that typically have low impact.

MSFD habitat - 1

Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings

Effort reduction	PD impact	L1 impact	Unfished area	Decline in value	Decline in weight
0	0.08	0.63	8.36	100.00	100.00
5	0.08	0.49	45.39	92.53	93.32
10	0.07	0.40	57.54	85.27	87.27
15	0.07	0.32	65.84	77.79	81.45
20	0.06	0.26	72.36	69.44	75.48
30	0.05	0.18	81.70	52.01	62.92
40	0.04	0.12	87.84	38.68	52.18
60	0.02	0.05	94.93	20.72	29.49
80	0.01	0.02	98.40	7.55	9.52
99	0.00	0.00	99.97	0.10	0.06

MSFD habitat - 2

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings

Effort reduction	PD impact	L1 impact	Unfished area	Decline in value	Decline in weight
0	0.19	0.85	1.37	100.00	100.00
5	0.18	0.68	27.28	91.71	91.06
10	0.17	0.57	39.98	84.07	82.25
15	0.16	0.49	49.06	77.18	75.47
20	0.15	0.42	56.46	70.96	70.17
30	0.13	0.31	68.27	59.27	59.66
40	0.10	0.22	76.91	48.48	50.22
60	0.06	0.11	89.27	28.17	33.78
80	0.02	0.03	96.77	9.15	17.58
99	0.00	0.00	99.96	0.10	0.21

MSFD habitat - 3

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings

Effort reduction	PD impact	L1 impact	Unfished area	Decline in value	Decline in weight
0	0.13	0.66	4.21	100.00	100.00
5	0.12	0.48	49.76	92.42	90.88
10	0.11	0.38	61.34	86.42	82.33
15	0.10	0.32	68.19	80.44	72.03
20	0.09	0.26	73.46	74.45	66.28
30	0.07	0.19	81.46	63.39	53.28
40	0.06	0.13	86.79	52.18	40.97
60	0.03	0.06	93.86	29.56	23.47
80	0.01	0.02	98.21	10.53	7.92
99	0.00	0.00	99.97	0.49	0.34

MSFD habitat - 4

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings

Effort reduction	PD impact	L1 impact	Unfished area	Decline in value	Decline in weight
0	0.13	0.76	2.56	100.00	100.00
5	0.12	0.64	30.96	94.37	96.15
10	0.11	0.55	42.54	88.78	92.44
15	0.10	0.47	51.31	81.98	88.15
20	0.09	0.40	59.01	77.54	84.85
30	0.08	0.29	70.74	68.16	78.54
40	0.07	0.20	79.42	58.76	72.02
60	0.04	0.09	90.53	39.36	56.17
80	0.02	0.03	96.74	19.58	11.72
99	0.00	0.00	99.93	0.49	0.23

Northern North Sea

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018

Indicators	values
Intensity (I-1)	2.01
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2)	0.91
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3)	0.57
Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4)	0.38
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5)	0.09
Average PD impact	0.07
Average L1 impact	0.60
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2	0.91
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2	0.23

Figure 1

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.

MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km2	Number of grid cells	Landings 1000 tonnes	Value 10 6 euro	Swept area 1000 km2	Average fishing intensity I 1	Prop of area in fished grid cells I 2	Prop of area fished per year I 3	Smallest prop of area with 90 of fishing effort I 4
Offshore circalittoral sand	165.00	12053	163.99	103.15	278.56	1.69	0.88	0.50	0.33
Offshore circalittoral mud	62.21	5243	90.85	68.73	204.16	3.28	0.99	0.85	0.46
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	25.39	2901	29.59	14.89	30.31	1.19	0.92	0.42	0.26
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	1.44	345	1.06	1.58	3.27	2.27	0.98	0.61	0.22
Circalittoral sand	1.34	291	0.13	0.31	0.50	0.38	0.76	0.24	0.19
Circalittoral mud	0.75	157	0.04	0.15	0.30	0.40	0.84	0.31	0.20
Circalittoral coarse sediment	0.72	282	0.12	0.40	0.40	0.56	0.92	0.36	0.19
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.52	269	0.07	0.13	0.12	0.22	0.82	0.17	0.25
Unknown	0.45	293	0.08	0.13	0.21	0.46	0.69	0.24	0.18
Upper bathyal sediment	0.31	99	3.11	1.13	4.91	15.89	1.00	1.00	0.61
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.31	391	0.10	0.17	0.19	0.61	0.96	0.34	0.25
Infralittoral sand	0.22	99	0.00	0.01	0.02	0.07	0.41	0.07	0.14
Circalittoral mixed sediment	0.17	77	0.01	0.02	0.04	0.23	0.69	0.20	0.23
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.15	180	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.16	0.75	0.12	0.22
Infralittoral mud	0.06	34	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.02	0.21	0.02	0.18
Infralittoral coarse sediment	0.05	82	0.00	0.01	0.01	0.21	0.72	0.17	0.17
Infralittoral mixed sediment	0.02	15	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.02	0.25	0.02	NA

Figure 3

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground

Figure 7

Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10^6 euro.

X	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MIX	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2)	1.88	32.93	301.81	1.62	3.31	90.42	88.72	0.01	2.40	0
Landings (1000 tonnes)	2.69	5.13	250.17	0.31	14.77	1.64	11.92	0.00	2.58	0
Value (10^6 euro)	6.29	15.75	134.36	1.27	2.49	2.39	23.39	0.01	4.97	0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2)	1.43	0.16	0.83	0.19	4.46	0.02	0.13	0.44	1.07	NA
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2)	3.36	0.48	0.45	0.78	0.75	0.03	0.26	0.90	2.07	NA

Impact

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.

Figure 9

Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)

Table 4

Table 4. Overview of impact per metier relative to weight and value of landings estimated for the grid cells fished (SAR >0) with these métiers only. Weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 106 euro.

X	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MIX	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Landings (1000 tonnes)/PD impact	0.09	0.02	0.38	0.03	4.48	0.03	0.10	0.07	0.08	NA
Value (10^6 euro)/PD impact	0.22	0.07	0.20	0.12	0.81	0.04	0.19	0.15	0.15	NA
Landings (1000 tonnes)/L1 impact	0.01	0.00	0.03	0.00	0.10	0.00	0.00	0.01	0.01	NA
Value (10^6 euro)/L1 impact	0.03	0.01	0.02	0.01	0.02	0.00	0.01	0.02	0.02	NA

Figure 10

Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.

Manangement scenarios

Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the four most extensive MSFD habitat types. Figures and tables show the trade-off between average impact (PD, L1) or unfished area and fisheries values of landings based on a static analysis of effort removal.

The analysis is based on the progressive removal of 5 to 99% of all MBCG fishing effort, starting from the c-squares with the lowest effort (corrected for the areal extent of the MSFD habitat within each c-square). Blue dots show the current situation and are used as reference. The unfished area in the reference only includes grid cells that are unfished. Average PD and L1 impact is a weighted averaged considering the areal extent of each MSFD habitat type within a grid cell.

Note that the fraction of grid cells above/below a certain impact threshold initially remains the same as the removal of effort starts from the c-squares with the lowest effort that typically have low impact.

MSFD habitat - 1

Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings

Effort reduction	PD impact	L1 impact	Unfished area	Decline in value	Decline in weight
0	0.05	0.54	11.68	100.00	100.00
5	0.05	0.40	53.70	90.93	94.28
10	0.04	0.31	65.44	83.21	89.32
15	0.04	0.25	72.51	75.69	83.87
20	0.04	0.21	77.67	68.50	78.54
30	0.03	0.15	84.63	55.80	65.19
40	0.03	0.10	89.44	43.76	55.57
60	0.01	0.04	95.46	22.94	28.61
80	0.01	0.01	98.58	7.00	6.41
99	0.00	0.00	99.97	0.08	0.03

MSFD habitat - 2

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings

Effort reduction	PD impact	L1 impact	Unfished area	Decline in value	Decline in weight
0	0.12	0.82	0.75	100.00	100.00
5	0.12	0.64	29.20	91.90	95.77
10	0.11	0.53	41.68	84.28	90.93
15	0.10	0.46	50.63	77.25	86.71
20	0.09	0.39	58.08	70.16	82.20
30	0.08	0.28	70.03	57.18	72.48
40	0.07	0.20	79.03	45.45	62.48
60	0.03	0.08	91.47	24.03	40.99
80	0.01	0.03	97.50	7.40	17.02
99	0.00	0.00	99.98	0.10	0.25

MSFD habitat - 3

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings

Effort reduction	PD impact	L1 impact	Unfished area	Decline in value	Decline in weight
0	0.05	0.47	7.56	100.00	100.00
5	0.04	0.37	49.96	84.46	94.77
10	0.04	0.29	64.23	71.41	90.13
15	0.03	0.24	72.47	61.35	85.19
20	0.03	0.19	78.20	52.80	79.13
30	0.02	0.14	85.29	42.66	66.05
40	0.02	0.10	89.93	33.20	49.68
60	0.01	0.04	95.78	18.47	26.66
80	0.00	0.01	98.80	7.21	7.50
99	0.00	0.00	100.00	0.10	0.03

MSFD habitat - 4

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings

Effort reduction	PD impact	L1 impact	Unfished area	Decline in value	Decline in weight
0	0.09	0.58	2.11	100.00	100.00
5	0.08	0.44	44.57	90.31	91.43
10	0.07	0.38	55.42	84.84	83.72
15	0.06	0.32	62.08	76.51	74.70
20	0.06	0.28	68.17	69.19	66.16
30	0.05	0.21	76.65	58.80	58.94
40	0.03	0.16	82.16	46.55	50.74
60	0.02	0.09	90.58	31.46	37.89
80	0.01	0.04	95.88	16.28	13.28
99	0.00	0.01	100.00	4.13	3.38

Kattegat

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018

Indicators	values
Intensity (I-1)	1.17
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2)	0.61
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3)	0.36
Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4)	0.26
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5)	0.39
Average PD impact	0.17
Average L1 impact	0.40
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2	0.71
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2	0.56

Figure 1

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.

MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km2	Number of grid cells	Landings 1000 tonnes	Value 10 6 euro	Swept area 1000 km2	Average fishing intensity I 1	Prop of area in fished grid cells I 2	Prop of area fished per year I 3	Smallest prop of area with 90 of fishing effort I 4
Offshore circalittoral mud	8.21	743	3.91	17.23	23.93	2.92	0.94	0.78	0.42
Infralittoral sand	4.35	639	0.09	0.14	0.19	0.04	0.29	0.04	0.08
Offshore circalittoral sand	3.11	556	1.02	1.43	2.00	0.64	0.82	0.30	0.22
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	1.33	500	0.26	0.74	1.06	0.80	0.84	0.35	0.27
Infralittoral mixed sediment	1.16	447	0.02	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.34	0.02	0.11
Infralittoral mud	0.76	237	0.00	0.00	0.01	0.01	0.07	0.01	0.05
Circalittoral mud	0.73	266	0.39	0.91	1.04	1.42	0.68	0.55	0.10
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	0.59	335	0.17	0.34	0.52	0.88	0.79	0.35	0.27
Circalittoral mixed sediment	0.51	279	0.01	0.02	0.04	0.08	0.46	0.05	0.16
Circalittoral sand	0.43	345	0.06	0.09	0.13	0.30	0.57	0.16	0.12
Infralittoral coarse sediment	0.20	222	0.02	0.03	0.03	0.15	0.46	0.09	0.12
Circalittoral coarse sediment	0.17	224	0.01	0.03	0.04	0.23	0.49	0.13	0.17
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.06	118	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.06	0.62	0.06	0.19
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.04	103	0.00	0.00	0.01	0.17	0.77	0.14	0.21
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.04	80	0.00	0.03	0.04	1.21	0.99	0.59	0.29
Unknown	0.00	174	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.09	0.45	0.08	0.06

Figure 3

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground

Figure 7

Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10^6 euro.

X	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MIX	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2)	0	22.82	5.29	0	0.30	0.76	0.05	0.00	0.00	0
Landings (1000 tonnes)	0	2.50	1.80	0	1.49	0.22	0.00	0.00	0.00	0
Value (10^6 euro)	0	17.73	2.61	0	0.37	0.35	0.00	0.00	0.00	0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2)	NA	0.11	0.34	NA	5.04	0.29	0.00	0.66	0.40	NA
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2)	NA	0.78	0.49	NA	1.24	0.46	0.00	3.37	1.02	NA

Impact

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.

Figure 9

Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)

Table 4

Table 4. Overview of impact per metier relative to weight and value of landings estimated for the grid cells fished (SAR >0) with these métiers only. Weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 106 euro.

X	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MIX	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Landings (1000 tonnes)/PD impact	NA	0.01	0.09	NA	2.37	0.19	0	0.12	0.04	NA
Value (10^6 euro)/PD impact	NA	0.07	0.13	NA	0.58	0.30	0	0.60	0.10	NA
Landings (1000 tonnes)/L1 impact	NA	0.00	0.00	NA	0.03	0.02	0	0.02	0.00	NA
Value (10^6 euro)/L1 impact	NA	0.03	0.01	NA	0.01	0.03	0	0.12	0.01	NA

Figure 10

Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.

Manangement scenarios

Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the four most extensive MSFD habitat types. Figures and tables show the trade-off between average impact (PD, L1) or unfished area and fisheries values of landings based on a static analysis of effort removal.

The analysis is based on the progressive removal of 5 to 99% of all MBCG fishing effort, starting from the c-squares with the lowest effort (corrected for the areal extent of the MSFD habitat within each c-square). Blue dots show the current situation and are used as reference. The unfished area in the reference only includes grid cells that are unfished. Average PD and L1 impact is a weighted averaged considering the areal extent of each MSFD habitat type within a grid cell.

Note that the fraction of grid cells above/below a certain impact threshold initially remains the same as the removal of effort starts from the c-squares with the lowest effort that typically have low impact.

MSFD habitat - 1

Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings

Effort reduction	PD impact	L1 impact	Unfished area	Decline in value	Decline in weight
0	0.43	0.82	6.03	100.00	100.00
5	0.41	0.67	33.29	94.68	87.76
10	0.39	0.60	39.89	89.76	82.18
15	0.36	0.54	45.63	84.27	73.84
20	0.34	0.49	50.93	78.65	67.39
30	0.29	0.40	60.20	67.54	56.62
40	0.24	0.32	67.90	56.15	45.61
60	0.15	0.19	81.13	35.88	28.94
80	0.07	0.08	92.17	16.39	12.95
99	0.00	0.00	99.80	1.06	0.94

MSFD habitat - 2

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings

Effort reduction	PD impact	L1 impact	Unfished area	Decline in value	Decline in weight
0	0.01	0.06	71.49	100.00	100.00
5	0.01	0.06	88.87	95.52	93.89
10	0.01	0.05	92.13	89.32	85.14
15	0.01	0.05	92.63	84.01	80.63
20	0.01	0.04	93.92	78.72	70.50
30	0.00	0.03	95.90	69.30	61.83
40	0.00	0.02	96.84	57.55	52.00
60	0.00	0.01	98.63	39.27	41.00
80	0.00	0.00	99.69	19.87	14.48
99	0.00	0.00	100.00	9.59	4.17

MSFD habitat - 3

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings

Effort reduction	PD impact	L1 impact	Unfished area	Decline in value	Decline in weight
0	0.08	0.39	17.61	100.00	100.00
5	0.07	0.32	63.63	94.87	92.84
10	0.07	0.28	70.87	88.22	84.79
15	0.06	0.25	74.88	82.44	77.33
20	0.06	0.21	78.53	77.30	70.72
30	0.05	0.17	83.29	67.14	63.34
40	0.04	0.13	87.48	56.82	51.03
60	0.02	0.06	94.36	35.35	32.84
80	0.01	0.01	98.86	15.62	14.48
99	0.00	0.00	100.00	7.28	7.13

MSFD habitat - 4

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings

Effort reduction	PD impact	L1 impact	Unfished area	Decline in value	Decline in weight
0	0.13	0.44	16.49	100.00	100.00
5	0.12	0.38	55.09	94.97	86.77
10	0.12	0.34	60.92	90.38	76.50
15	0.11	0.31	65.89	86.05	71.65
20	0.11	0.27	72.30	81.87	67.86
30	0.09	0.20	80.01	69.96	38.98
40	0.08	0.17	83.51	60.74	28.98
60	0.05	0.11	89.22	41.48	20.19
80	0.03	0.06	94.74	21.84	9.23
99	0.00	0.00	100.00	3.18	1.27

Southern North Sea

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018

Indicators	values
Intensity (I-1)	1.60
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2)	0.96
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3)	0.71
Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4)	0.55
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5)	0.04
Average PD impact	0.13
Average L1 impact	0.77
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2	0.78
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2	0.13

Figure 1

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.

MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km2	Number of grid cells	Landings 1000 tonnes	Value 10 6 euro	Swept area 1000 km2	Average fishing intensity I 1	Prop of area in fished grid cells I 2	Prop of area fished per year I 3	Smallest prop of area with 90 of fishing effort I 4
Offshore circalittoral sand	68.90	6102	98.66	119.66	96.39	1.40	0.99	0.75	0.50
Circalittoral sand	58.50	5888	130.27	124.82	90.81	1.55	0.98	0.71	0.42
Offshore circalittoral mud	29.48	2612	43.09	48.98	71.69	2.43	1.00	0.91	0.49
Circalittoral coarse sediment	16.18	2899	16.30	14.03	11.34	0.70	0.77	0.39	0.29
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	14.09	2175	10.50	25.31	23.97	1.70	0.93	0.56	0.25
Infralittoral sand	6.43	1391	16.04	26.84	14.54	2.26	0.97	0.81	0.35
Circalittoral mud	3.46	851	16.83	11.62	7.90	2.28	0.98	0.74	0.26
Circalittoral mixed sediment	3.07	721	2.04	2.41	1.97	0.64	0.90	0.45	0.32
Unknown	2.20	506	3.58	12.78	7.97	3.63	0.89	0.69	0.17
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	1.90	487	1.45	2.43	2.99	1.58	0.99	0.71	0.29
Infralittoral coarse sediment	1.11	427	1.92	2.46	1.78	1.61	0.96	0.80	0.20
Infralittoral mud	0.29	356	0.34	1.09	0.50	1.71	0.86	0.55	0.21
Infralittoral mixed sediment	0.03	54	0.01	0.02	0.01	0.31	0.80	0.12	0.19
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.00	10	0.00	0.01	0.01	1.43	1.00	0.48	NA
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.00	6	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.02	0.37	0.02	NA
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.00	5	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.04	0.73	0.04	NA

Figure 3

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground

Figure 7

Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10^6 euro.

X	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MIX	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2)	0.25	50.90	86.55	0.91	3.65	10.30	40.84	55.02	92.58	0.02
Landings (1000 tonnes)	12.91	4.17	194.77	0.43	49.54	1.00	3.72	26.08	56.81	1.60
Value (10^6 euro)	19.61	16.97	53.50	1.18	10.38	2.31	6.45	94.50	213.45	2.31
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2)	52.51	0.08	2.25	0.47	13.56	0.10	0.09	0.47	0.61	106.17
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2)	79.79	0.33	0.62	1.30	2.84	0.22	0.16	1.72	2.31	153.46

Impact

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.

Figure 9

Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)

Table 4

Table 4. Overview of impact per metier relative to weight and value of landings estimated for the grid cells fished (SAR >0) with these métiers only. Weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 106 euro.

X	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MIX	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Landings (1000 tonnes)/PD impact	4.08	0.01	1.04	0.11	13.08	0.12	0.09	0.14	0.07	20.38
Value (10^6 euro)/PD impact	6.20	0.05	0.29	0.29	2.74	0.28	0.15	0.49	0.26	29.46
Landings (1000 tonnes)/L1 impact	0.90	0.00	0.05	0.01	0.14	0.00	0.00	0.02	0.01	1.64
Value (10^6 euro)/L1 impact	1.36	0.01	0.01	0.03	0.03	0.01	0.00	0.08	0.04	2.38

Figure 10

Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.

Manangement scenarios

Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the four most extensive MSFD habitat types. Figures and tables show the trade-off between average impact (PD, L1) or unfished area and fisheries values of landings based on a static analysis of effort removal.

The analysis is based on the progressive removal of 5 to 99% of all MBCG fishing effort, starting from the c-squares with the lowest effort (corrected for the areal extent of the MSFD habitat within each c-square). Blue dots show the current situation and are used as reference. The unfished area in the reference only includes grid cells that are unfished. Average PD and L1 impact is a weighted averaged considering the areal extent of each MSFD habitat type within a grid cell.

Note that the fraction of grid cells above/below a certain impact threshold initially remains the same as the removal of effort starts from the c-squares with the lowest effort that typically have low impact.

MSFD habitat - 1

Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings

Effort reduction	PD impact	L1 impact	Unfished area	Decline in value	Decline in weight
0	0.13	0.83	0.60	100.00	100.00
5	0.12	0.73	22.33	94.61	93.67
10	0.11	0.64	33.40	89.42	87.87
15	0.11	0.56	42.00	84.72	82.80
20	0.10	0.49	49.63	79.91	78.28
30	0.09	0.37	62.10	69.83	68.84
40	0.07	0.28	72.25	58.39	60.92
60	0.04	0.12	87.60	33.30	44.81
80	0.01	0.04	96.46	11.78	26.72
99	0.00	0.00	99.96	0.64	2.75

MSFD habitat - 2

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings

Effort reduction	PD impact	L1 impact	Unfished area	Decline in value	Decline in weight
0	0.12	0.76	1.78	100.00	100.00
5	0.11	0.66	28.28	94.98	96.65
10	0.10	0.57	39.57	89.86	93.27
15	0.10	0.50	47.80	83.19	89.32
20	0.09	0.43	55.25	78.95	86.67
30	0.08	0.32	67.12	70.69	80.91
40	0.06	0.23	76.53	62.60	75.67
60	0.04	0.11	89.15	44.84	62.10
80	0.02	0.04	96.33	24.04	13.05
99	0.00	0.00	99.90	2.02	0.47

MSFD habitat - 3

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings

Effort reduction	PD impact	L1 impact	Unfished area	Decline in value	Decline in weight
0	0.21	0.95	0.12	100.00	100.00
5	0.20	0.81	16.70	90.98	86.93
10	0.19	0.69	30.07	82.96	73.98
15	0.18	0.59	40.90	75.68	64.04
20	0.17	0.50	49.41	68.76	56.19
30	0.15	0.37	62.75	55.93	42.19
40	0.12	0.27	73.27	43.92	31.44
60	0.08	0.13	86.59	26.73	14.91
80	0.04	0.05	94.80	12.68	6.38
99	0.00	0.00	99.88	0.84	0.37

MSFD habitat - 4

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings

Effort reduction	PD impact	L1 impact	Unfished area	Decline in value	Decline in weight
0	0.05	0.45	22.82	100.00	100.00
5	0.05	0.40	51.33	94.70	95.94
10	0.05	0.35	58.80	90.04	92.68
15	0.04	0.32	64.58	85.89	89.63
20	0.04	0.28	69.35	68.86	79.30
30	0.03	0.22	77.15	60.67	73.56
40	0.03	0.16	83.28	52.11	67.79
60	0.02	0.08	91.70	35.84	54.91
80	0.01	0.02	97.61	20.50	35.82
99	0.00	0.00	100.00	1.42	5.19

English Channel

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018

Indicators	values
Intensity (I-1)	3.46
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2)	0.95
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3)	0.64
Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4)	0.38
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5)	0.05
Average PD impact	0.16
Average L1 impact	0.69
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2	0.71
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2	0.20

Figure 1

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (community longevity) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.

MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km2	Number of grid cells	Landings 1000 tonnes	Value 10 6 euro	Swept area 1000 km2	Average fishing intensity I 1	Prop of area in fished grid cells I 2	Prop of area fished per year I 3	Smallest prop of area with 90 of fishing effort I 4
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	36.31	2339	38.41	101.50	158.69	4.37	1.00	0.75	0.39
Circalittoral coarse sediment	12.57	1326	10.52	26.08	29.37	2.34	0.94	0.47	0.23
Circalittoral sand	4.52	763	4.72	13.03	17.06	3.78	0.96	0.75	0.31
Offshore circalittoral sand	2.49	493	5.17	14.80	15.94	6.40	1.00	0.97	0.36
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	1.77	181	1.03	2.38	5.17	2.92	1.00	0.80	0.39
Infralittoral coarse sediment	1.65	468	3.62	6.16	2.15	1.30	0.94	0.46	0.16
Infralittoral sand	1.54	484	2.36	4.87	4.12	2.68	0.94	0.69	0.23
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	1.03	523	0.19	0.44	0.36	0.35	0.78	0.21	0.17
Circalittoral mud	0.67	161	0.47	1.42	2.15	3.21	0.95	0.63	0.19
Circalittoral mixed sediment	0.62	117	0.06	0.15	0.19	0.32	0.82	0.25	0.25
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.55	399	0.37	0.72	0.30	0.54	0.79	0.18	0.12
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.45	335	0.23	0.61	0.49	1.10	0.99	0.30	0.26
Unknown	0.42	281	0.06	0.14	0.25	0.60	0.82	0.29	0.09
Infralittoral mud	0.23	121	0.32	0.83	0.66	2.88	0.88	0.68	0.18
Offshore circalittoral mud	0.18	51	0.20	0.60	1.05	5.71	1.00	0.98	0.33
Infralittoral mixed sediment	0.01	22	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.10	0.20	0.10	0.05

Figure 3

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground

Figure 7

Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10^6 euro.

X	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MIX	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2)	7.59	1.77	84.34	29.05	4.90	20.84	78.05	0.01	13.09	0.01
Landings (1000 tonnes)	29.27	0.09	14.07	12.24	1.71	1.65	5.59	0.00	3.68	0.20
Value (10^6 euro)	78.28	0.70	33.37	29.56	3.05	4.20	12.43	0.03	13.76	0.16
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2)	3.86	0.05	0.17	0.42	0.35	0.08	0.07	0.32	0.28	36.68
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2)	10.32	0.40	0.40	1.02	0.62	0.20	0.16	2.24	1.05	28.90

Impact

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle for the PD and L1 method.

Figure 9

Figure 9. The mean impact of mobile bottom-contacting gears in all combined MSFD habitats and the four most extensive habitat types between 2009 and 2018 (left). The proportion of the fished area with an impact of less than 0.2 (right)

Table 4

Table 4. Overview of impact per metier relative to weight and value of landings estimated for the grid cells fished (SAR >0) with these métiers only. Weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 106 euro.

X	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MIX	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Landings (1000 tonnes)/PD impact	0.28	0.01	0.09	0.08	0.14	0.09	0.07	0.04	0.03	1.46
Value (10^6 euro)/PD impact	0.76	0.05	0.21	0.20	0.25	0.23	0.15	0.28	0.11	1.15
Landings (1000 tonnes)/L1 impact	0.05	0.00	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.00	0.01	0.01	0.00	0.67
Value (10^6 euro)/L1 impact	0.14	0.00	0.02	0.03	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.05	0.02	0.53

Figure 10

Figure 10. PD impact (upper panel) and L1 impact (lower panel) of selected gear groupings on the most extensive MSFD habitat types. Impact is estimated in isolation of the other gear groupings. Note the different scales on the Y-axis.

Manangement scenarios

Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the four most extensive MSFD habitat types. Figures and tables show the trade-off between average impact (PD, L1) or unfished area and fisheries values of landings based on a static analysis of effort removal.

The analysis is based on the progressive removal of 5 to 99% of all MBCG fishing effort, starting from the c-squares with the lowest effort (corrected for the areal extent of the MSFD habitat within each c-square). Blue dots show the current situation and are used as reference. The unfished area in the reference only includes grid cells that are unfished. Average PD and L1 impact is a weighted averaged considering the areal extent of each MSFD habitat type within a grid cell.

Note that the fraction of grid cells above/below a certain impact threshold initially remains the same as the removal of effort starts from the c-squares with the lowest effort that typically have low impact.

MSFD habitat - 1

Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings

Effort reduction	PD impact	L1 impact	Unfished area	Decline in value	Decline in weight
0	0.19	0.81	0.43	100.00	100.00
5	0.17	0.57	42.71	95.41	95.83
10	0.16	0.47	53.26	89.54	90.05
15	0.15	0.39	61.09	84.32	85.02
20	0.14	0.33	67.11	77.57	78.48
30	0.11	0.24	76.11	64.30	65.55
40	0.09	0.17	82.75	49.24	50.72
60	0.05	0.08	91.63	28.78	30.03
80	0.02	0.02	97.62	9.39	9.52
99	0.00	0.00	100.00	0.38	0.35

MSFD habitat - 2

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings

Effort reduction	PD impact	L1 impact	Unfished area	Decline in value	Decline in weight
0	0.11	0.53	6.08	100.00	100.00
5	0.09	0.39	59.01	88.67	85.54
10	0.09	0.31	68.64	82.35	79.48
15	0.08	0.25	75.18	76.54	73.96
20	0.07	0.20	79.67	71.70	67.54
30	0.06	0.14	86.45	60.96	56.72
40	0.05	0.10	90.37	49.91	45.63
60	0.03	0.05	95.04	28.72	26.12
80	0.01	0.02	98.08	14.60	13.56
99	0.00	0.00	100.00	3.63	3.61

MSFD habitat - 3

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings

Effort reduction	PD impact	L1 impact	Unfished area	Decline in value	Decline in weight
0	0.16	0.78	3.86	100.00	100.00
5	0.15	0.63	34.85	92.58	91.23
10	0.14	0.51	48.37	86.95	84.75
15	0.13	0.43	56.36	81.22	78.45
20	0.12	0.37	63.03	74.29	72.44
30	0.10	0.28	72.57	63.77	62.06
40	0.08	0.20	79.93	55.44	53.51
60	0.05	0.10	89.85	33.52	30.96
80	0.03	0.04	96.11	16.10	14.95
99	0.00	0.00	100.00	1.12	1.28

MSFD habitat - 4

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings

Effort reduction	PD impact	L1 impact	Unfished area	Decline in value	Decline in weight
0	0.34	0.97	0.01	100.00	100.00
5	0.32	0.84	15.57	93.25	92.85
10	0.29	0.74	25.31	86.62	86.67
15	0.28	0.67	33.68	81.66	82.13
20	0.26	0.59	41.46	76.18	77.21
30	0.22	0.48	52.90	62.02	63.63
40	0.18	0.36	63.88	51.50	53.75
60	0.11	0.19	81.55	28.31	30.15
80	0.05	0.08	92.25	12.29	13.67
99	0.01	0.01	100.00	1.56	1.85

Norwegian Trench

Summary

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Table 1

Table 1. Pressure and impact indicators for 2013-2018

Indicators	values
Intensity (I-1)	1.99
Proportion of area in fished cells (I-2)	0.50
Proportion of area fished per year (I-3)	0.35
Smallest prop. of area with 90% of fishing effort (I-4)	0.21
Proportion of area in unfished cells (I-5)	0.50
Average PD impact	NA
Average L1 impact	NA
Proportion of area with PD impact < 0.2	NA
Proportion of area with L1 impact < 0.2	NA

Figure 1

Figure 1 Geographic distribution of surface abrasion, seabed sensitivity (not shown) and total value and weight from mobile bottom-contacting gear. The maps of surface abrasion, value and weight show the average per year for 2013-2018

Pressure

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Figure 2

Figure 2 Fishing intensity, Swept Area Ratio, by mobile bottom-contacting gears (year-1), averaged for the 2013-2018 six-year cycle

Table 2

Table 2 Overview of pressure indicators of all mobile bottom-contacting gears per broad-scale habitat averaged for 2013-2018. I refers to the indicators in Table 1.

MSFD broad habitat type	Extent of habitat 1000 km2	Number of grid cells	Landings 1000 tonnes	Value 10 6 euro	Swept area 1000 km2	Average fishing intensity I 1	Prop of area in fished grid cells I 2	Prop of area fished per year I 3	Smallest prop of area with 90 of fishing effort I 4
Upper bathyal sediment	61.54	4209	41.35	25.95	107.92	1.75	0.57	0.37	0.22
Offshore circalittoral mud	8.28	1037	11.03	26.72	43.83	5.29	0.93	0.83	0.38
Unknown	5.91	1979	0.10	0.00	2.66	0.45	0.29	0.14	0.04
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	3.89	1846	0.25	0.73	3.87	1.00	0.43	0.30	0.08
Circalittoral sand	3.65	405	9.66	8.66	16.22	4.45	0.99	0.88	0.42
Offshore circalittoral sand	3.02	413	13.18	17.73	42.89	14.20	0.98	0.96	0.40
Upper bathyal sediment or Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef	2.77	1053	0.06	0.00	0.82	0.30	0.16	0.11	0.03
Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef	2.44	1105	0.12	0.01	1.62	0.66	0.21	0.17	0.06
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef	1.04	1669	0.03	0.17	0.47	0.46	0.31	0.14	0.06
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment	0.89	272	0.58	1.71	3.09	3.47	0.96	0.66	0.26
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef	0.66	1660	0.01	0.08	0.26	0.40	0.27	0.13	0.04
Circalittoral mixed sediment	0.53	271	1.74	1.12	1.83	3.48	0.93	0.70	0.18
Circalittoral mud	0.34	253	0.01	0.04	0.11	0.32	0.36	0.17	0.11
Infralittoral sand	0.27	153	0.21	0.35	0.94	3.48	0.91	0.70	0.20
Infralittoral mud	0.16	215	0.00	0.01	0.07	0.42	0.32	0.16	0.06
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment	0.04	128	0.01	0.05	0.07	1.54	0.95	0.48	0.25
Circalittoral coarse sediment	0.04	125	0.01	0.05	0.05	1.12	0.85	0.43	0.14
Infralittoral mixed sediment	0.03	146	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.39	0.36	0.16	0.06
Infralittoral coarse sediment	0.01	104	0.00	0.02	0.02	1.54	0.66	0.37	0.07
Lower bathyal sediment or Lower bathyal rock and biogenic reef	0.00	5	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	NA
Lower bathyal rock and biogenic reef	0.00	3	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	NA

Figure 3

Figure 3. Time series of (a) mean fishing intensity (surface abrasion), (b) proportion of the surface area of the seafloor fished, (c) aggregation of fishing (proportion of the surface area with 90% of the fishing effort) by habitat. Results represent vessels over 15m (2009-2011) and vessels over 12m (2012-2018).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Cumulative proportion of the swept area, landings and value. Grid cells were sorted from highest to lowest fishing intensity and include non-fished cells. The results are for all mobile bottom-contacting gears based on averaged fishing data per c-square from 2013-2018.

Core fishing grounds

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Number of years c-squares are within the 90% core fishing grounds by metier during the period 2013-2018

Figure 6

Figure 6. Percentage area overlap between the 90% highest value per year and the reference core? fishing ground

Figure 7

Figure 7. percent area fished vs. landings value (euro) by métier, coloured by year

Fishing by métier

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etiam vehicula scelerisque ligula et eleifend. Nulla lacus velit, tristique a nunc vel, scelerisque porttitor mauris. Vivamus ligula arcu, posuere imperdiet auctor ut, rutrum non tortor. Phasellus feugiat libero nisi. Suspendisse pretium justo ligula, nec ornare lorem molestie nec. Sed suscipit nisl eu eleifend sollicitudin. Curabitur tincidunt blandit sapien, non fermentum eros pretium a. Pellentesque fringilla ac nisl vel mattis. In at dui eget arcu eleifend convallis. Fusce luctus eros vel sapien condimentum, et lobortis nisl vehicula. Aenean hendrerit egestas odio, vel eleifend ipsum tempor id. Phasellus id magna cursus, ornare arcu finibus, tempus nulla. Aenean eu eros sit amet neque convallis mollis sit amet vitae justo. Donec consectetur in nibh id sagittis.

Mauris varius lorem consectetur, volutpat urna in, volutpat massa. Nam congue, mauris nec ullamcorper congue, quam dui condimentum sem, mattis egestas est orci in massa. Duis faucibus egestas erat eu placerat. Praesent eleifend euismod rutrum. Morbi eget laoreet justo, vitae finibus justo. In vitae lacus a turpis pretium facilisis et et magna. Duis pretium diam finibus est consectetur, ut posuere risus faucibus. Donec mi orci, pellentesque ac dui id, vulputate volutpat leo. Proin quis gravida nulla. Vestibulum lobortis sit amet neque nec pulvinar. Phasellus id tortor congue, aliquet nulla at, venenatis turpis. Cras semper diam vitae gravida ultricies. Donec eu ultricies diam. Aliquam mattis interdum maximus. Proin sed lacus nibh.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of area fished (sum of swept area), landings and value for the different metiers. Area fished in 1000 km2, weight of landings in 1000 tonnes, value of landings in 10^6 euro.

X	DRB_MOL	OT_CRU	OT_DMF	OT_MIX	OT_SPF	SDN_DMF	SSC_DMF	TBB_CRU	TBB_DMF	TBB_MOL
Area swept (1000 km2)	0	97.61	88.65	0.00	5.75	24.88	10.88	0.00	1.30	0
Landings (1000 tonnes)	0	10.84	35.81	0.01	24.80	4.46	1.13	0.00	1.47	0
Value (10^6 euro)	0	41.34	28.97	0.00	0.13	8.18	2.24	0.00	2.84	0
Landings (1000 tonnes)/Area swept (1000 km2)	0	0.11	0.40	1.51	4.31	0.18	0.10	0.12	1.13	NA
Value (10^6 euro)/Area swept (1000 km2)	0	0.42	0.33	0.00	0.02	0.33	0.21	0.59	2.19	NA

Impact

No information available

Manangement scenarios

Multi-purpose habitat management with reductions in effort through spatial closures for the four most extensive MSFD habitat types. Figures and tables show the trade-off between average impact (PD, L1) or unfished area and fisheries values of landings based on a static analysis of effort removal.

The analysis is based on the progressive removal of 5 to 99% of all MBCG fishing effort, starting from the c-squares with the lowest effort (corrected for the areal extent of the MSFD habitat within each c-square). Blue dots show the current situation and are used as reference. The unfished area in the reference only includes grid cells that are unfished. Average PD and L1 impact is a weighted averaged considering the areal extent of each MSFD habitat type within a grid cell.

Note that the fraction of grid cells above/below a certain impact threshold initially remains the same as the removal of effort starts from the c-squares with the lowest effort that typically have low impact.

MSFD habitat - 1

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings

Effort reduction	PD impact	L1 impact	Unfished area	Decline in value	Decline in weight
0	NA	NA	47.56	100.00	100.00
5	NA	NA	73.82	96.54	94.22
10	NA	NA	79.38	92.26	87.97
15	NA	NA	82.55	88.69	81.82
20	NA	NA	84.92	84.74	72.94
30	NA	NA	88.48	74.54	61.60
40	NA	NA	91.23	58.29	51.03
60	NA	NA	95.47	25.53	32.05
80	NA	NA	98.34	8.52	14.05
99	NA	NA	99.98	0.58	0.68

MSFD habitat - 2

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings

Effort reduction	PD impact	L1 impact	Unfished area	Decline in value	Decline in weight
0	NA	NA	7.03	100.00	100.00
5	NA	NA	30.20	96.87	93.75
10	NA	NA	39.02	93.26	88.26
15	NA	NA	45.81	89.20	83.11
20	NA	NA	50.82	84.05	78.57
30	NA	NA	60.69	73.65	68.99
40	NA	NA	68.79	63.16	60.70
60	NA	NA	81.54	44.78	40.40
80	NA	NA	92.04	21.33	20.49
99	NA	NA	99.88	0.58	3.26

MSFD habitat - 3

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings

Effort reduction	PD impact	L1 impact	Unfished area	Decline in value	Decline in weight
0	NA	NA	71.20	100.00	100.00
5	NA	NA	86.00	57.72	84.96
10	NA	NA	89.54	57.72	75.85
15	NA	NA	91.38	47.76	68.59
20	NA	NA	92.97	37.11	64.78
30	NA	NA	95.36	23.06	41.82
40	NA	NA	96.20	23.06	35.93
60	NA	NA	98.11	10.22	27.11
80	NA	NA	99.29	10.22	8.81
99	NA	NA	100.00	0.00	0.19

MSFD habitat - 4

Multi-purpose habitat management trade-off for the most extensive MSFD habitat type.

Table presenting a similar overview as above, while including weight of landings

Effort reduction	PD impact	L1 impact	Unfished area	Decline in value	Decline in weight
0	NA	NA	57.78	100.00	100.00
5	NA	NA	71.55	95.32	90.21
10	NA	NA	76.84	90.72	82.64
15	NA	NA	79.42	83.21	77.92
20	NA	NA	81.62	75.46	72.10
30	NA	NA	85.69	59.39	58.33
40	NA	NA	88.72	49.66	48.82
60	NA	NA	93.02	24.13	28.05
80	NA	NA	97.11	10.77	9.37
99	NA	NA	100.00	0.00	0.18